To the OP,
Everything turned out well for you,nobody was injured, so you must have done everything right in that situation.
Had it been me, I'm sure my reaction to the predator's hand-in-pocket approach would have been like LordTio3's "tactical disengagement"; my gun would have been pointed at his center-mass while I moved to the drivers seat to roll away from him.
(I like that ....... "TACTICAL DISENGAGEMENT" [thanks LordTio3]........ Chesty Puller called it "attacking in a different direction".)

Sorry I haven't been back to check on my thread, I had a busy weekend. Thanks for the comments.

To clear up a few things:

1. I didn't have to turn my back on him to jump in my car. He approached from the side/front of the car at about 10 o'clock. I was able to keep my eyes on him and get to the driver's door with a short sidestep. I would not have felt as good about that move if I had to turn my back, and probably would have hustled off in a different direction.

2. I don't know how bad the guy at the mexican restaurant was beaten, but it wasn't bad enough to charge him with the felony version of the battery charge. That would have required "serious bodily injury", as I recall. But in any case, tough luck for him. I'm not psychic and I'm not a cop.

__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell

How presumptive to think I was asking that as if it were a consideration as to whether or not the original poster should have shot the bad guy. It was only a question about he he felt afterwards and about he he may have felt afterwards had things turned out differently. Remember, this post was not solely about whether or not he handled it properly but how he felt afterwards. I was making an inquiry, not suggesting he draw and fire a weapon based upon any sort of comic book or fantasy novel seer saying ability based upon his emotions. You implied way too much, about what you think I was getting at, from a question I asked.

It may not have been explicit, but suggesting that someone might have felt better had he acted differently in a particular situation clearly implies, I think, that you believe he ought to have acted differently. Claiming that you are "just asking a question" about how he felt doesn't change this, it just gives you some prevaricatory wiggle room.

Quote:

One person here did mention that he was amazed at how folks like me, he used my words to quote, think that we are responsible for the actions of others. I do not beleive that unless I trick or force others to do something. I beleive I am responsible for my own actions and not those of anyone else. I also believe though, I am responsible for my own inaction and that to take no action can at times be morally wrong or can be wrong in my line of thinking; I also know that in fact it can also be legally wrong in certain types of cases. (I am not saying in this type of case.)

Again, implied criticism of the way Mr. Lahey responded to this situation. I think it's important to point out that he did take very effective action to help stop the man who threatened him. From his first post:

So he was able, under stress, accurately to note details of the man's appearance, and he gave the police that description, which enabled them to catch him. This is a job well done, and not some sort of morally suspect "failure to act," which is what your comments imply.

Edited to add:
The question of whether one's conduct should be guided by how he expects to feel about it after the fact is an interesting one. This may actually be a sign of a high level of moral development...

__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.

Last edited by Evan Thomas; March 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM.
Reason: afterthought.

I just don't see how anybody is second guessing Mr. Lahey. He identified a threat before it was upon him, evaluated it and took charge with a strong command letting the BG know he was "made", then Mr. Lahey kept moving and created distance with an obstacle between him and the BG (also would have served as primary cover if needed), found an avenue of escape and took it, de-escalating the entire event.

Perfect. He turned what-might-have-been into a non-event to be posted on a forum from the safety of his home. If you're going to carry a gun, you better check your ego at the door, gentlemen. You want to be Charles Bronson, you'll likely do hard time and lose everything you're trying to protect.

Mr. Lahey, i hope i do as well as you did should the need ever arise.

__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Bad guy; I would like your groin to meet the heel of my shoe; your face to meet a straight punch, hook and uppercut, a pair of knees to your nose, and an arm bar."

Running is always the first option, but due to his close proximity, I would let him have a preview of some Krav Maga; leaving him crippled/incapaciated long enough for me to keep him down and call the COPs, as well as get my sidearm ready-in the event it's not on my person.

__________________
Krav Maga/Judo
Qualified Rifleman/Marksmanship Instructor/Lic. Medic
"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" Romans 8:1

... and a few others, who figure since it all turned out well, it was obviously perfect...

... and with all due respect to B. Lahey, who was able to walk away (drive away, really), and who handled things pretty well...

It's possible to constructively criticize the OP without 1) attacking him or his performance, or 2) being particularly bloodthirsty.

The decision made in this instance worked out well for the OP; his ability to provide a good description to the police after the event was a huge plus, and deserves specific praise.

However, it's possible to say he did well, and to be happy for him, yet still think he could have created some vulnerabilities had the BG really turned out to have been armed.

I'm not sure how much time it took the OP to actually get into his car, get the engine running, and get the car moving to safety. My guess is it took longer than it would have taken to draw a weapon, and by a substantial margin.

If the BG really had a weapon, and had decided to use it, the time the OP needed to do all the things he did could have subjected him to gunfire, at close range, while he was in a confined but not bulletproof space.

Without meaning to armchair quarterback or pick on the OP, I do feel that this is something that should actually be considered by the "retreat is best" side. I'm all for retreat, if I feel I can do it in relative safety.

But I, personally, would not get into a car, especially one that wasn't already running, if a BG were threatening me with what might be a firearm. (In fact, what training I've received in that area would lead me to exit a vehicle if it weren't capable of immediate departure.)

I stated my opinion earlier in the thread. Also, the only bashing I have seen has been from the side that has been defensive about any kind of constructive criticism. Please correct me if I am wrong here. One example is a post that seems to state that anyone who doesn't see his side is an idiot. At least that's how I read it the one time I did.

I would like to point out also to Daugherty, I do not think the OP made it clear in his post he let the BG know he was "made" if I am reading this correctly. He never used his box as a barrier; he was just loading up the vehicle, but I guess you were saying he could have. There are times when it is acceptable to draw a weapon, and this is certianly one of them in my opinion. It doesn't mean that a weapon had to be drawn, as the OP has proven. This situation probably would've escalated if the OP hadn't left or if he had engaged the BG with any kind of conversation or action good or bad. This is speculation, but he definately meant business - his record and later actions have shown this to be true.

Also, not talking about anyone in this thread but TFL in general - there are people on the forum from all kinds of life, backrounds, age, careers, etc. I think it is just sometimes easier for certain individuals to react to these situations differently. I mean, some people do not want to pull a gun no matter what. Others this scenario would be like second nature to draw on the perp. I just, in my opinion, don't think some people realize how close to serious danger the OP was. It is very possible the BG was armed, but he was going to make a move if he got a chance either way. This BG seems like he had already 'graduated' and moved up in his life of crime. He was probably in his 2nd personality needing attention half drunk or on drugs but who the heck knows and who should have to care when I am just trying to go about my business?

Many of these BG's just don't think right. You might do him a favor, and then he gets mad at you when you won't do a second one. A good example is this exact scenario: the BG got mad at the OP because he wouldn't give up any change and/or didn't seem interested in his plight. "Well maybe I'll just rob you instead". Huh? Maybe your %^$ just ran into someone who has absolutely no problem standing his ground on you justifiably and in a calm and cool manner as well as with total confidence in the boys down at the station to boot. I'm not going to do anything I do not feel is right. I will face any aftermath with honesty and integrity as well. I know if I am doing something that is sending me down the river. That is one of the reasons why some people do not carry. They do not want to get in an emotional situation that backfires or do something stupid when they're trying to do the right thing. I am not worried about this. Perhaps I haven't seen enough in my life and there still is time to change my mind on that subject. I did serve four yrs active duty, and I did see a lot and learn some things but that is a different matter plus neither here nor there in this thread. Bottom line - if and when I ever use my weapon it will be for the right reason. If not, then I deserve whatever I get and yes, I know it might have to work its way thru the maze either way. Thats life. I do not think a prosecutor is going to try and ruin my life and family for doing the right thing and/or trying to do the right thing. Again, I know it isn't always that cut and dry but I am willing to stand up for myself. sorry for the rambling after the fact. I just figured since I hadn't said much I midas well stand my ground.

I wouldn't have shot this man, but I wouldn't have just gotten in my car and left unless I felt in my mind he wasn't a threat to do so(a good,early post mentioned this and this is very possible). The reason wouldn't be because I was scared to draw my weapon or if I wasn't sure what to do either. To the OP, I am not saying either of these last two sentences were your reasons. I would not have shot this man until more had happened after drawing, as I originally stated. Hopefully this wouldn't be the case. Seaman, yes check with the PD. You were given some advice and conversation. I recommend doing more research. There are other examples of having a firearm not shot yet while you hold it, and I wouldn't want to shoot off an ATTACK of a college drunk trying to get in a fistfight as even a further, totally seperate example I just eluded to. That scenario was going thru my head with some of your posts. The ordering of the perp without the weapon can lead to escalation and not de-escalation. The BG might not know what is coming without you showing the firearm. That in my mind would be wrong in numerous instances. It is common sense and a basic duty(duty might be a stretch but you're covering all the bases) to give the perp a chance to stand down. Obviously sometimes he/she isn't that lucky and Many people Die because they are too nice, flexible, and give a BG too many chances.

I didn't draw because I didn't see a weapon, and I didn't want to instigate an episode of gutter bravado ("Aw, you got a gun? You better shoot me! Go on and shoot me you *insert explitive of your choice*!"). The read I got on this character was that he had little regard for his own life, and was as likely as anyone to pull a suicidal toughguy stunt like that.

Also, my gut told me he did not have a gun. It seemed more likely to be a screwdriver or knife or something, and he was just far enough away for me to gamble on the move to the driver's seat. I agree that it was risky, but it appeared to be somewhat less risky than other options at the time. I have practiced drawing from concealment while seated in a car, and am relatively confident I could have done so should it have been required.

I made a number of judgement calls and took a number of calculated risks in this incident, which is why I started this thread. It worked out, but I encourage some degree of monday morning quarterbacking.

__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell

The original post really shows that all situations are different and the correct answer is: "It depends."

What worked this time, evading, may not work next time, but we won't know until that situation presents itself. For this scenario the correct response was to flee. In another scenario it may very well be the wrong approach.

I have had the displeasure of drawing my gun on another person three times with the full intent of stopping their actions by force that would most likely result in death. Thankfully the actions I was attempting to stop did in fact stop with my producing a weapon. It was all very fast, but as I'm sure some of you know, time slowed down to a crawl.

Would I have been correct in discharging my weapon? That's for the courts to determine. I'm just thankful I didn't have to find out. In my humble opinion B. Lahey acted correctly in this scenario. One can only judge this scenario based on what B. Lahey knew at the time and how he perceived the actions of the criminal actor. The fact that he was able to drive away without being harmed proves to me that he acted correctly.

While it would be charitable to consider the future victims of the criminal actor, it is not realistic, practical, or even ethical. I say ethical because one's responsibility is to themselves and their loved ones. "Justice" is reserved for the courts, and we are not empowered with a code of vigilantism. We should only be concerned with the here and now.

Now being that a future victim was afforded the same opportunity to provide for their own personal protection, but made the decision not to, as the original poster says to me that it's their choice and they will have to live with that choice, good or bad.

i stand corrected - the OP did not issue the verbal command. After 4 pages of BS and bravado, i guess i misremembered. I probably would have made it clear that further advance was going to come at great peril to the BG. And probably would have escalated, rather than de-escalated the situation, I recognize to my chagrin.

Could he have stood his ground? Sure. Could he have drawn or at least put a hand on the butt of his pistol? Of course. I might have. That's why i say, i'd like to have done as well as he did. Who knows if my comand to stop and a hand on the butt of my pistol might not have enraged the BG and precipitated a physical attack, or worse? Mr. Lahey didn't even have to find out.

In the situation Mr. Lahey found himself, he used his intellect and instincts and drove off unscathed, and didn't even have to explain to a local cop why he had drawn a gun on a poor homeless man. He CERTAINLY didn't reaction-shoot what was probably an unarmed man who hadn't even laid a hand on him yet but was closing the distance rapidly. That's a win/win/win and was unquestionably the correct decision. This isn't a what-if scenario - this is historic fact. I feel pretty confident saying thay Lahey would have reacted very differently if his radar gave him a different "read" of the BG.

So QB all you want; we weren't there, weren't the one taken by surprise, weren't able to make our own firsthand assessment or size the guy up, didn't have to make Mr. Lahey's decision. Unless the BG actually displayed or threatened a weapon, Lahey would have had to actually be getting assaulted before the AOJP loop would be satisfied. Instead, he just went on his way.

I think Mr. Lahey is fully prepared to shoot if necessary and justified. I for one, am glad he isn't aching to prove it.

__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

Well done, you avoided being lawfully guilty on murder charges. It's not a lawful homicide unless the killing was the only way to prevent an active, capable threat from otherwise inflicting immediate harm on a person. And take that antiguns who think that we get guns and permits so that we can kill people whenever we have the slightest opportunity!

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.